What is AI?

Table of Contents

AI, as a field, has several different goals. The textbook breaks
them down into four categories: artifacts that [act/think]
[humanly/rationally]. In the first dimension, acting vs. thinking,
the idea is that an artifact that acts a certain way will exhibit the
relevant properties via its motion, its responses to questions, its
appearance, etc. On the other hand, an artifact that only thinks a
certain way must be studied at a deeper level: we would need to look
at the internal structures and algorithms.

Artifacts may act/think like humans or act/think rationally. The
authors chose this division because humans do not always act or think
rationally. An AI system that should act/think like a human should
make human-like mistakes. On the other hand, an AI system that
acts/thinks rationally should make the most rational or intelligent
choices at every juncture, regardless of what humans would typically
do in the same situations.

The authors of the textbook decide that acting rationally is the most
important framing of AI. They describe an "intelligent agent" as a
system that responds to its environment, and changes it environment
(by acting within it), in the most rational manner in order to achieve
goals.

The AI archetype

AI, as a quality, or a property of some artifact, or something that an artifact possesses, is a more provocative idea than AI as a field. When many people think about AI, they are thinking about artifacts that "have" AI.

What does an artifact "have" when it has AI?

Responsiveness

A robot that does not respond to its environment is decidedly lacking
any intelligence. Many AI researchers believe that an artifact cannot
be considered intelligent if it does not respond to changes in its
surroundings. This assumes that an intelligent action actually does
depend on the state of one's surroundings…

We find something troubling about an otherwise intelligent being
acting (or refusing to act) without proper consideration of their
environment. For example, schizophrenic patients with alogia or
catatonia suffer from an apparent disconnect with their surroundings.

Autonomy

Intelligent artifacts do not only take instructions from others (if
they do at all), they also, to some degree or another, decide their
actions on their own. The advanced robot archetype is fully
autonomous; it asks for no instructions, and it rarely takes advice.

Literal-mindedness

Artificial intelligence is generally believed to be significantly
lacking cleverness or creativity. Machines "just do what they are
told." Even machines that "learn" are only able to learn what they
are programmed to learn, no more, no less.

This literalness is a source of major concern for many people who are
unfamiliar with the actual workings of the robot. AI researchers are
quite aware of how flexible a robot can be, assuming the researcher is
able to continue updating the robot's programming. However, it seems
that the popular understanding of AI is that a robot thinks about its
world and thinks about our interactions with it under some kind of
pathological literal-mindedness. Interestingly, we see the same
feature in genies, who typically grant a literal interpretation of a
wish.

Chigurh is terrifying (partly) because he strictly adheres to
rules. (No Country for Old Men, 2007)

The allure of many robots and other AI systems in science fiction is
grounded on literalness and the incommensurability of robot
understanding and human understanding of the same situations. While
humans often find reasons that rules may be broken, robots typically
can make no sense of such exceptions. For example, Gort from The Day
the Earth Stood Still is programmed to destroy humanity if/when
humans decide to wage nuclear war with each other. No matter the
reason for the war; Gort makes no exceptions:

For our policemen, we created a race of robots—(indicating
Gort)—Their function is to patrol the planets—in space ships like
this one—and preserve the peace. […] At the first sign of
violence they act automatically against the aggressor. And the penalty
for provoking their action is too terrible to risk. — Klaatu (the
alien) speaking, who brought Gort; The Day the Earth Stood Still
(1951)

If exceptions were possible, the emotional impact of Gort's presence
would vanish.

Dave disabling AI (seemingly) run amok.

HAL 9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey, likewise, sacrifices humans for the sake of long-term mission objectives. This feature of the AI archetype is perhaps the most psychologically impactful.

Presence

AI, whether just a computer program or a fully-mobile robot, is
generally believed to exist in some particular space and time. That
is, the AI is generally believed to be "present" and embodied. You can
ask it questions, turn it on or off, repair it when it breaks.

However, intelligence may not be a property only of individuals but
also an emergent social or collective phenomenon. And AI systems may
be diverse, spread across the internet or across many simple-minded
micro-robots that communicate peer-to-peer. Presence is not
necessarily a quality of AI systems.

Electronics

Although electronic and electro-mechanical systems are easy to create
and control, they may not be the only way to create intelligent
artifacts. Biological or even quantum systems may well be the future
of AI. Perhaps our sophistication in designing physical and digital
systems will yield insights about how to build biological or quantum
intelligent systems. Or perhaps entirely new ideas must be brought to
bear.

Artificiality

Robots are not humans. They are simulations, at best. Thus,
typically, they are outside the purview of human rights,
etc. Spielberg's film A.I. explores this issue (there,
robots/androids are demolished in public stagings). However, whether a
robot can become "more than it is," i.e., more than just the creation
of the watchmaker, is an open question.

A.I., directed by Spielberg, has a scene in which robots are torn
apart in a "flesh fair."

For a sophisticated and quite provocative take on the difference
between humans and AI, consider listening to a reading of
Baudrillard's Le Xerox et l'infini (read in English) from People
Like Us (about 30 minutes).